Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 17 (0.42 seconds)R.C. Gupta & Ors. Etc. Etc. vs Regional Provident Fund Commissioner ... on 4 October, 2016
25. The issue was again agitated before the Hon'ble Supreme Court in case
of Sunil Kumar B. (supra) wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court has
approved the finding with regard to fact that there was no cut off date to
be contemplated prior to 2014 amendment and limiting the entitlement
of enhanced pension coverage those employees only who had already
exercised an option under Clause 11(3) of the unamended Scheme
30
would be contrary to the ratio of the case of R.C. Gupta (supra) and
thereafter, they have categorized the employees who can be given the
benefits of higher pension from paragraph 50.1 to 50.11.
The Employees Provident Fund ... vs Sunil Kumar B on 4 November, 2022
As such, he would submit that judgment of Hon'ble
Supreme Court in case of Sunil Kumar B. (supra) does not help the
respondents.
The Employees’ Provident Funds And Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952
Section 17 in The Employees’ Provident Funds And Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952 [Entire Act]
The Employees' Provident Funds Scheme, 1952
Section 4 in The Employees’ Provident Funds And Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952 [Entire Act]
Federal Bank Ltd vs Sagar Thomas & Ors on 26 September, 2003
30. So far as judgment of Otis (supra) is concerned, in that case the EPF
Scheme 1995 was challenged which has been dismissed by the Hon'ble
Supreme Court and held that the EPF Act is social welfare legislation
and if legislation is not patently arbitrary, the Hon'ble Supreme Court will
not monitor implementation of such policy unless the same is
discriminatory and arbitrary. Since the scheme is for the welfare of the
employees, the same cannot be held to be violative of Constitution of
India.
Pepsu Road Transport Corp., Patiala vs Mangal Singh & Ors on 12 May, 2011
31. Further reliance of the respondents in case of PEPSU Road Transport
Corporation (supra), wherein the issue raised in that case is as per
Regulation 4, the condition for exercise of the option on or before
15.12.1992 by an employee in order to avail the pensionary benefit
35
under the scheme. Subsequently, the corporation has also extended
this period by 3 months, still the employees had not exercised any
option for availing the benefits under the pension scheme and they were
granted all the benefits under the CPF and the Gratuity without any
objection or protest. However, on 01.06.2002, after merely 10 years,
from the retirements, the respondent filed a suit for declaration of
entitlement to pension and other benefits in the Court of Civil Judge,
Senior Division, Bhatinda. This is not the situation in the present case
as the petitioners immediately after judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court
in R.C. Gupta and circular issued by the department itself submitted
option. This case is also distinguishable on the facts also as in the case
in hand, no cutoff date has been prescribed under the original scheme.
Krishena Kumar And Anr. Etc. Etc vs Union Of India And Ors on 13 July, 1990
29. Further reliance of the respondents in case of Krishena Kumar (supra).
34
The judgment is distinguishable as in the pension scheme framed by
the Railways authorities there is a Railways Contributory Provident
Fund Scheme. The said scheme was before 1957 and in the year 1957,
the said scheme was replaced by pension scheme in the year 1957 and
employees who entered Railway service on or after 1957 were
automatically covered by the Railway Pension Scheme.